↓ Skip to main content

Gut Microbiota Contributes to Resistance Against Pneumococcal Pneumonia in Immunodeficient Rag−/− Mice

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
27 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
67 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Gut Microbiota Contributes to Resistance Against Pneumococcal Pneumonia in Immunodeficient Rag−/− Mice
Published in
Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology, April 2018
DOI 10.3389/fcimb.2018.00118
Pubmed ID
Authors

Krysta M. Felix, Ivan A. Jaimez, Thuy-Vi V. Nguyen, Heqing Ma, Walid A. Raslan, Christina N. Klinger, Kristian P. Doyle, Hsin-Jung J. Wu

Abstract

Streptococcus pneumoniae causes infection-related mortality worldwide. Immunocompromised individuals, including young children, the elderly, and those with immunodeficiency, are especially vulnerable, yet little is known regarding S. pneumoniae-related pathogenesis and protection in immunocompromised hosts. Recently, strong interest has emerged in the gut microbiota's impact on lung diseases, or the "gut-lung axis." However, the mechanisms of gut microbiota protection against gut-distal lung diseases like pneumonia remain unclear. We investigated the role of the gut commensal, segmented filamentous bacteria (SFB), against pneumococcal pneumonia in immunocompetent and immunocompromised mouse models. For the latter, we chose the Rag-/- model, with adaptive immune deficiency. Immunocompetent adaptive protection against S. pneumoniae infection is based on antibodies against pneumococcal capsular polysaccharides, prototypical T cell independent-II (TI-II) antigens. Although SFB colonization enhanced TI-II antibodies in C57BL/6 mice, our data suggest that SFB did not further protect these immunocompetent animals. Indeed, basal B cell activity in hosts without SFB is sufficient for essential protection against S. pneumoniae. However, in immunocompromised Rag-/- mice, we demonstrate a gut-lung axis of communication, as SFB influenced lung protection by regulating innate immunity. Neutrophil resolution is crucial to recovery, since an unchecked neutrophil response causes severe tissue damage. We found no early neutrophil recruitment differences between hosts with or without SFB; however, we observed a significant drop in lung neutrophils in the resolution phase of S. pneumoniae infection, which corresponded with lower CD47 expression, a molecule that inhibits phagocytosis of apoptotic cells, in SFB-colonized Rag-/- mice. SFB promoted a shift in lung neutrophil phenotype from inflammatory neutrophils expressing high levels of CD18 and low levels of CD62L, to pro-resolution neutrophils with low CD18 and high CD62L. Blocking CD47 in SFB(-) mice increased pro-resolution neutrophils, suggesting CD47 down-regulation may be one neutrophil-modulating mechanism SFB utilizes. The SFB-induced lung neutrophil phenotype remained similar with heat-inactivated S. pneumoniae treatment, indicating these SFB-induced changes in neutrophil phenotype during the resolution phase are not simply secondary to better bacterial clearance in SFB(+) than SFB(-) mice. Together, these data demonstrate that the gut commensal SFB may provide much-needed protection in immunocompromised hosts in part by promoting neutrophil resolution post lung infection.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 67 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 67 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 15%
Student > Master 9 13%
Student > Bachelor 7 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 9%
Other 4 6%
Unknown 20 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Immunology and Microbiology 17 25%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 4%
Other 5 7%
Unknown 20 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 April 2019.
All research outputs
#5,514,097
of 26,184,649 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology
#1,136
of 8,368 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#95,948
of 344,571 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology
#20
of 118 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,184,649 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 78th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,368 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 344,571 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 118 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.